Society: Deeds, Not Words

This week we’re going to get a bit political. Considering what’s going on with the world recently; not just the past few weeks, but what has transpired over just half a decade. Though I do believe in a society with civil protection and a military strength to defend its borders, but it’s unlikely they really do protect the people they are meant to serve.

Ever since the dawn of humanity, we humans always sought to protect ourselves from unknown and known threats. Whether it is a bear near our camp or the group of other humans wanting to eliminate the competition, we learned a few things along the way to increase our chances to survive. In many ways, our technology has grown alongside the need to protect and preserve lives within a social environment because we’ve learned that there’s safety in numbers. Going back to the pre-tool years of human evolution, we use to hunt in groups to run down prey. When we began sharping sticks, it made it efficient to kill our prey rather than waiting for it to exhaust itself to death. Possible over a millennia, one group found another group and likely did not like the other. Tensions would rise and physical confrontation will happen in the means of using the tools which built their home to use as a defense against those who would want to destroy. Over time, groups would be in such conflict would have to protect themselves in the day and in the night; which means have an armed guard. Though this would happen whether or no another group is involved, there would be animals which could have been considered higher up the food chain. Though this isn’t necessarily how we came to have armies and enforcement, it’s a beginning of protecting the people around us. Whether you think of this as a man with a pointy stick or a child with a bow and arrow, this person in the particular group is assigned to watch out for us while we go about our day and watch over us while we sleep.

As societies grew and permanently settled, the situation changed. No longer can one person can really watch over an entire group, so more people in the populace are assigned to the watch. Over time, perhaps we longer relied on just have the sharpest tool in the tool box. We need to protect ourselves from bigger societies with more people who are after resources. We built walls and worked specifically on technology to make our tools better. No longer these people were used to harvest and hunt for food, these tools became our weapons. Weapons we used to wage unnamed wars and weapons use to kill other humans over stockpiled food and construction staples like stone, wood and metals. Over the eras, the man with pointy stick will become a group of well armed and trained citizens with stone axes, then perhaps a jagged copper or iron blade. The arms race has begun.

Armour, swords, siege weapons, gun powder; no doubt the technology has grown alongside the need to be safe and alive and at the same time to confront the darkness ahead. As societies grew to span beyond the local geography, people began taking up arms for those who knew nothing about. Regardless of the reason to do so, these people chose to protect others in an place they know nothing about. From my point of view, we as a species gravitated towards working to secure what we have and gain more when possible. Whether it is to barter or to gain forcefully, we managed to impose this group protection on others. This is the power held by the highest order in society, to tell one allied group to attack a hostile group. In our democratic society, it is the politicians that declare wars and provide the aid to others. In the years before it, it was the kings and emperors who held this power. From the one to the many, this power has allowed all of us to stay together in groups and keep everyone safe. Which brings my burning question, who actually controls this axis of authority?

When it comes down to it, it’s the politicians in our society. Considering there is millions in one society, it’s nearly impossible to know what everyone wants. Thus why democracy in theory works, it is the majority of the people wanting the same. If the politicians say “war”, the majority of those people wanted war. If the politicians say “more coppers”, we get more coppers. Though under legal standing, a majority is 51% of the people. Meaning 49% of the society is against the majority. Arguably, some people are not in it for society but for themselves and using society to hide their motives. In that sense, the 51% could contain people who are not even voting for a better society but a goal which that politician wants to achieve. As long as power is there, there will be people with true and ulterior motives. Mostly indistinguishable, but chosen because of what outward trust has displayed to the public who selected them. There’s a special forces motto, “deeds, not words”; meaning the actions you commit to are more palpable than the promises. Perhaps this should be what distinguishes a politician, deeds and not words. Their actions should get them elected and not just what has been promised to the people potentially voting. Even with this, are they there to protect us?

If you are old enough or young and read a history book, you know about the past and how one person with overwhelming power and decimate a society. It’s a tough pill to swallow but I submit the idea that we are just as fallible as those who elected those people in the past. Nobody wants a police state, war or a revolution but this is the big three that could be just beyond the horizon. Because of our trust in a few in power who could potentially mismanaged this society, we allowed ourselves as the large minority to be vulnerable. This pyramid of power keeps people safe but it leaves the same people vulnerable. Same way the man with the pointy stick can kill his own camp. This is the double edged hidden blade that will assassinate the heart of our modern society (Assassin’s Creed reference, if you haven’t figured it out). It won’t be just terrorism, gangs, or money endowed citizens; but ourselves. Sounds grim simply put, but this is the prelude to change.

We still have the power to make a difference regardless of the opposition if we question and scrutinize everything we’ve previously created. Those who can ask the hard questions will expose weakness and flaws in the system that has been built up to protect and those who recognize these weakness will take it down bit by bit until we see the truth in the trust we put into our governments. The government is not our enemy but an institution we must keep asking questions and contributing towards, not only our votes and our taxes but our thoughts. The government broken down is the few and we are the many, even the minority. One side possesses the political power while the other has safety in numbers. Which one is truly powerful?